To the editor:
I'm writing about Jesse Handy's recent column in which he claimed, once again, to be the victim of subtle racism. I must confess that I am the person who gave Jesse the "dirty look" that upset him last week. My friend Bubba and I were sitting and talking together when Jesse and his friend walked past. Here is my account of the infamous event:
"Hey, Bubba."
"Hey, Paul."
"Isn't that Jesse?"
"Yep."
"Doesn't it look like his ... ?"
"Yep."
"And he's not wearing any ... ?"
"Nope."
"Bubba, isn't that just the most disgusting thing you have ever seen?"
"Yep."
"Bubba, do you think that we ought to tell him that his fly is open?"
"Nope."
I'm sorry that I didn't say anything sooner.
Paul Allen
graduate student, economics
To the editor:
Upon reading Jesse Handy's Feb. 12 column, "Celebrate Black History Month by opening your eyes to history," something caught my eye. Mr. Handy said male captives were valued according to their potential to be productive laborers, while women were assigned value according to their ability to breed and to nurse. This is a common misconception. Although I appreciate Handy's effort, it brings to light the need for us to have our eyes opened to black herstory.
Fabian Vaksman is not the first to say African-Americans are animals. Slave traders and owners used this concept to justify having similar work expectations for males and females.
Men and women were both expected to serve primarily as fieldhands. True enough, women were valued higher based on their fertility, but so were men (remember the "bucks"). In fact, according to Angela Davis' Women, Race, and Class, pregnant and nursing women kept up the same pace or received punishment. They were not permitted breaks to feed their infants periodically, and would fall behind because of the weight of the milk filling their breasts. One slave, Moses Grandy, related a time when one such unfortunate woman was severely flogged. Milk and blood mingled, flowing down her body.
It should not be shocking that many pages of black herstory have been whited out by the editors systematically, and not inadvertently. I doubt this is solely to avoid offending Southern white women's delicate sensibilities. These women were rarely educated, although somewhat more than slaves. Besides, if women could work alongside men in a field, it would not be long before Southern white women realized their sensibilities might not be so delicate after all.
On the other hand, I like to believe it is just too heartbreaking to explain to white, middle-class third graders why America is not always "the beautiful." But then, those third graders grow up and learn to white-out as well.
Apparently, the editors have quite a bit invested in white-out. Not only is the suffering of blacks whited-out to assuage guilty consciences, but the achievements of blacks are also whited-out so that no one could effectively refute supremacy - white, male, or otherwise.
However, the strength of blacks, women and other disenfranchised people lies in their refusal to be silenced. The geniuses among us naturally devote their gifts to their group-identified liberation.
Some of them recreate deleted pages of herstory (as in Paula Giddings' When and Where I Enter) and some recreate stories that have never been told (Toni Morrison's Beloved). Geniuses of each group can draw parallels and inspire each other (women's liberation movements usually follow black ones).
Still some will say that they are not a member of a "group," whited-out, whited-in or otherwise. They still aren't convinced they need black herstory.
Check out some of the above-mentioned books. You will realize they left some gaps in yourstory. You know how all of us have some of this thing called the irrepressible human spirit. Besides, you know what they say about white Southerners.
Syria Boyd
junior, English
To the editor:
Malou Lasquite's column, "Media coverage of Mexico presents extremes," gives you the wrong impression about Mexico. I was born and raised in Mexico. As a matter of fact, this is only my second semester as a graduate
student at UH. There are some things I would like to clarify.
Lasquite wrote, "American newspapers cover Mexico heavily." I have a subscription to the Houston Chronicle, and the amount of news regarding Mexico is very poor. When I was in my home country in December, my
parents had to give me a major update in Mexico's news.
Lasquite wrote, "Rebels abound in the small country states." I drove from Mexico to Houston, more than 1,000 miles. I was in the small states and I didn't see any rebels.
Lasquite wrote, "The majority of Mexicans are living in poverty." I was at a family reunion with more than 100 relatives. Some arrived by bus, some by car, some by airplane, but none of them were poor.
Don't get me wrong - I don't belong to a rich family. I studied at a Mexican public university where the tuition was $30 dollars for one semester (by the way, if UH is a public university, how come I have to pay more than $3,000?).
It's pretty obvious that Lasquite does not understand how things work in Mexico. We have a political party called the PRI. Every six years, the PRI changes the president of Mexico, and it's precisely in this transition period that we have a lot of troubles. The current government began in 1994 and will end in 2000, so this is the best time for investment and business opportunities.
Finally, advice for Malou Lasquite: quit journalism and join the border patrol.
Ariel Zuniga
graduate student,
computer science
To the editor:
In regards to Jason Ginsburg's most recent column: I am assuming this piece of rubbish was written with the sole intent of eliciting reader response. If, Mr. Ginsburg, you truly believe what you have written, I suggest you refrain from spewing forth such ignorance.
You say no one in modern America is denied opportunity, progress, or justice because of the color of their skin. I understand that, for you as a white male, it is easy to say this because people make assumptions based upon their experiences, and we (I am also a white male) are rarely
discriminated against. We are rarely harassed, much less beaten, by cops during routine traffic stops.
We have never had to fight for civil liberties, our ancestors were not enslaved, and we do not feel we lack representation since white males constitute an overwhelming majority of
politicians, business leaders, etc.
To say that "blacks are wrong when they say they are held back because of their color" is to discredit the modern civil-rights leaders, and anyone who agrees with their cause, as paranoiacs and whiners. If you could change your perspective and try to see things from their side, you would see there is some validity to their complaints.
I like to believe there is a happy medium between the racist hatemongers on both sides. Neither separation, disdain, nor discrediting is the solution. Patience, tolerance, and understanding are tools necessary for both sides. Until you understand this, Mr. Ginsburg, I recommend you stick to ranting about the Oilers.
David Smith
senior, finance/accounting
To the editor:
I am commenting on the Feb. 10 letter by Josef Fiala. I think "the girl" whose smoke trail he blazed would find it offensive by being referred to as a "girl," since she is obviously already an adult college student.
I smoke, but I certainly don't promote it, nor do I necessarily condone smoking. I think what Mr. Fiala seems to suggest is the idea of more adequate distribution and use of ashtrays.
Since an estimated 50 million adult Americans smoke, they have a few rights as well. The majority of air pollutants, by the way, arrive via automobiles (usually occupied by only one rider, though I catch the Metro bus when I can), jet fuels with additives that are almost unpronounceable, industrial fumes such as those blowing from dear old Deer Park and beyond, and finally, what's exhaled from the rear ends of cattle.
I don't refute Mr. Fiala's distaste for butts scattered all around, and I'm almost certain he also finds the discarded food wrappers, chip bags, containers and other detritus abandoned on our campus appalling as well.
Mr. Fiala moves on in his letter, after having been struck in the head (I presume by a metaphorical brick), and contrives his new set of Hitlerian mandates for his Orwellian world. He rages on by threatening to "ban ALL smoking on the UH campus" should his recommendations not be followed. He goes on to promise that "I'm not pissing in the wind." Yes, Mr. Fiala, I too would keep better abreast of that particular pollutant should the winds shift. I'd also check with a physician to ensure that it was merely an allegorical brick that has struck your social consciousness and not a real one.
Byron J. Oler
post-baccalaureate,
communication
To the editor:
In response to Josef Fiala's letter: I see one or two of these letters every semester, and I feel it is time to respond. Since I've been here, smoking has been banned in buildings around campus. (Actually, the ban did not take effect until Jan. 1, 1994, so I guess I could have smoked in class my first semester here.)
Throwing a lit butt into the trash can creates a fire hazard. This is why many buildings around campus have a combination trash can/ashtray. I took a walk around the UC Arbor, where ashtrays are plentiful. I found 16 cigarette butts in this area. (Yes, there are inconsiderate folks who will drop a butt when an ashtray is within arm's reach, and I believe these people should be crucified.) However, this is nothing in comparison to the veritable landfills outside Melcher, Communication, and the Quadrangle courtyard, where ashtrays are not plentiful. I propose a solution that could alleviate the problem, making both sides happy. Remove ashtrays from hallways, and attach them near the entrance doors to all the buildings around campus.
If you're going to banish smokers to the outdoors and not move ashtrays to where the smokers will be, don't get your butt in a sling if they end up on the ground.
Ryan Olson
senior "smoking major"